This is being proposed (and makes sense) on the grounds that the role of the Chair is a lot of work. (So I assume that point is agreed). "Willingness to serve" that role would likely be different once the parameters are configured differently - length of time is shorter... and the expectations of service are clear up front - a greater portion of the committee being expected to serve in that role (with more back-up on the several tasks). If there is interest from several quarters that "chair's responsibilities be somewhat divided", getting clear on that up front makes more sense. It appears a non sequitor to say that "once things are working well" such a change would come under consideration. If things get to the point of working well, count your blessings. Length of service - "too short/too long" sounds like the wrong frame in which to approach this. If understood as shared responsibility of the committee, rotation of the role has a number of benefits. Structure, to the extent we need it, should reflect our values, and should not be imitative of those we find elsewhere. On 7/8/07, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Although I like the idea conceptually, I am dubious how successful it would be. My intuition tells me that the Chair job is a lot of work. Just because a meeting will be in a specific region does not mean that one of the three regional people (or less if terms are up) will be willing to devote the time to do it, or capable of taking on the tasks (that is not meant as a negative comment - I *know* what my strengths are and where my interests lie, and I presume others do as well). Perhaps once things are working well and on a regular basis within the ALAC, it would be time for such a change. In my mind, today is not that day.
However, similar to the issue that Izumi raised, I proposed several months ago that the chair's responsibilities be somewhat divided. Specifically I suggested that there be several vice chairs and that for any given task (agenda's, intra-ICANN coordination, etc) that either the Chair be the lead person and one of the vice-chairs backs them up, or vice versa. This would spread the work around a bit more, play to people's strengths, and ensure backup for all responsibilities.
I also agree with Izumi about term. 3-4 months is too short to really get the feel of the job (and too long if the wrong person is selected!).
Alan
At 08/07/2007 09:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
I am rather conservative on this idea of rotating chair.
I think we should first define/agree on the division of labor of the whole committee's works, who is going to work on which areas.
After that, we can agree on how much the Chair should do, either with the current model, or with the proposed rotating Chair model.
In case we adopt to the rotation, perhaps the term may be longer than one meeting. I think 3 to 5 months are too short to become effective.
izumi
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org